The Task of an Archaeo-Genealogy of Theological Knowledge: Between Self-Referentiality and Public Theology

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We sincerely appreciate Reviewer 1 for their careful reading, thoughtful comments, and helpful suggestions, which have contributed to improving the clarity and depth of our manuscript. We have addressed each point below and made the corresponding revisions, which are highlighted in the re-submitted version (using track changes).

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Please quote Francis’ statement. (Pope Francis 2017, n. 4).

Response 1:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree with the reviewer’s comment and have accordingly incorporated a direct quotation from Veritatis Gaudium (Pope Francis 2017, n. 4, d) into the manuscript.

This addition reinforces the critique of self-referential theology by grounding it in Pope Francis’ call for theological engagement with global challenges and cross-disciplinary dialogue, addressing the growing conviction of a common project.

The revised text can be found on page 07, lines 284-289, where we now write (in red in attachment):

This results not only in a pastoral disconnection, but also in a lack of interdisciplinary dialogue, which translates into an approach that ignores the complexity of the contemporary world and fails to respond to the urgent questions of the present, especially the growing conviction which the ‘planet is a homeland and that humanity is one people living in a common home’: ‘Recognizing this interdependence obliges us to think of one world with a common plan’” (Pope Francis 2017, n. 4, d).

Comments 2:

Please indicate who is the author of most of the figures (are they the authors’ own?)

Response 2:

Thank you for this helpful observation. We have clarified the authorship of the figures in the manuscript to ensure full transparency regarding the origin of the visual materials. Yes, we are the authors of the majority of the figures, particularly the diagrams, which were created by us for didactic purposes and specifically developed to support the argumentation of this article.

The following clarification has been added on page 12, in the footnote 3 to the first figure:

“Most of the figures presented in this article were created by the authors for didactic purposes, unless otherwise indicated.”

In addition, we will include a note in the footer of each author-generated diagram with the indication: “author-generated diagram”, to ensure clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript.

Once again, we express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for their valuable comments and contribution to the improvement of this article.

Kind regards,

The authors.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We are deeply grateful to Reviewer 2 for the evaluation of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the positive remarks, and your encouraging feedback is truly appreciated and motivates us in our ongoing research.

Kind regards,

The authors.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

We are sincerely grateful to Reviewer 3 for their careful and thoughtful engagement with our manuscript. The Reviewer’s detailed and constructive feedback has significantly contributed to enhancing the clarity, rigour, and scholarly depth of our work. In what follows, we provide point-by-point responses to each of the comments, indicating how we have revised the text accordingly. All modifications have been incorporated into the resubmitted version of the manuscript using track changes.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

 I think it is worth defining more clearly that you have your own interpretation of “self-referentiality.“ Also what you define as public theology probably comes closest to what would be understood in Catholic Theology as Catholic Social Teaching and your argument holds if that is the case, as it shouldn’t be merely self-referential.

Response 1:

We thank Reviewer 3 for this insightful observation. We agree that it is important to clarify the meaning of “self-referential theology” as used in our manuscript. We have therefore added a sentence specifying that our use of this expression does not imply a rejection of dogmatic theology. Rather, it refers to a theological posture that becomes epistemologically closed when it fails to engage with the social, ethical, and political dimensions of the contemporary world.

The following clarification has been added on page 02, lines 50-53:

“However, this critique of self-referentiality does not imply a rejection of dogmatic theology itself. Instead, it draws attention to the dangers of theology becoming isolated within its own systems and losing the ability to address contemporary issues. In this sense, public theology is not proposed as a replacement for traditional theological approaches, but as an epistemological complement to them.”

Additionally, we acknowledge the Reviewer 3’s suggestion regarding the proximity between our notion of public theology and Catholic Social Teaching. This is indeed an important connection, which we had already evoked. In light of the Reviewer’s comment, we have further clarified this point to make explicit that our proposal resonates with the public dimension of Catholic theology as articulated in Catholic Social Teaching and the Magisterium of Pope Francis.

The following clarification has been added on page 08, lines 350 - 360:

“This article addresses the criticism formulated by Pope Francis in his ecclesiastical teachings, in line with the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Public theology, as proposed here, is not just a reflection on public issues, but a theological discourse that emerges through public interaction. From this perspective, criteria of truth are not defined solely by internal coherence or dogmatic authority, but also by the capacity of theology to illuminate, interpret and transform the world in which it is situated. As a form of contemporary public knowledge, it requires theology to engage with the emerging semantics of a body of knowledge shaped by a complex group of relations that function as a rule for the epistemological conditions of its historical context. Here, the focus of public theology is on sharing the historical and discursive conditions that led to the emergence of knowledge considered scientific in modern times.”

Comments 2:

 However not all theology is “public theology” - Dogmatic theology as a branch of theology, can and should be self-referential as Revelation is for those with faith and therefore unashamedly can deal with aspects of the mystery of faith- God; Christ for example.  You seem to be implying that exploring revelation in a self-referential way is exclusivist, leading theology to become merely “an identity device” (p. 27) about “ecclesiastical” discourses (31). But theology (in a Catholic sense) is not just about sociological and political identities but about faith offering perspectives on philosophical questions (it involves both faith and reason); nor does a discourse of Revelation lead necessarily to political sides or exclude dialogical approaches (seen for example in Catholic ecumenical dialogues of doctrine). Dogmatic theology also doesn’t have to be reconceived in a non-exclusivist way for public consumption so that those without faith can relate to it; however, at the same time, a dialogue of those who have faith with those who don’t can certainly purify faith and theology in the public sphere (which relates to your argument).

Response 2:

Thank you very much for this insightful and important observation. We fully agree that dogmatic theology, especially in the Catholic tradition, rightly maintains a self-referential character when engaging with Revelation, which is inseparable from the mystery of faith. Our aim is not to oppose or discredit this dimension of theology, but on the one hand rather to highlight the epistemological risks of self-referentiality when it leads to the exclusion of theological discourse from broader societal and interdisciplinary dialogue; and on the other hand, points out a epistemological path to face this challenge.

We clarify in our manuscript that public theology, as understood here, does not replace dogmatic theology, but proposes a complementary epistemological horizon—one in which theological knowledge is articulated in conversation with contemporary challenges and situated in the public sphere. As we note (page 02, lines 50-53), the goal is not to reduce theology to political or sociological categories, but to engage its potential to illuminate the human condition in plural contexts.

Furthermore, we agree with the Reviewer that faith and reason, Revelation and dialogue, are not opposed but mutually enriching. This is made explicit, for example, in our discussion on the epistemological reconfiguration of theology in dialogue with Catholic Social Teaching, especially when theology becomes a university discipline through concordats rather than through epistemic consensus among a constellation of knowledges, which is the typical path of emergence for disciplines associated with the Human Sciences. This approach allows for what the Reviewer 3 rightly describes as “a dialogue of those who have faith with those who don’t,” which we also affirm. The question we raised in the paper, is how to do it in public debating terms, in accordance with a set of rules for the production of knowledge shared by a body of knowledge with scientific status.

The following clarification has been added on page 10, lines 432-438:

“As such, this article does not seek to deny the legitimacy of self-referential epistemological modes of dogmatic theology as a belief system. Instead, it highlights the epistemological risks of isolating theological discourse from broader societal dialogue, particularly when theology becomes a university discipline within a scientific system through concordats rather than epistemic consensus among various fields of knowledge, as was typical with the emergence of the human sciences. In this context, public theology is presented as an additional approach that allows theology to engage with the public sphere through epistemological openness and interdisciplinary interactions.”

Comments 3:

 Dogmatic Theology can be related to “truth” (in a metaphysical sense as giving meaning to being and the relationship between God and creation) without reducing it to “setting absolute truths" or ideological positions. (p 26; 30).

Response 3:

Thank you for highlighting this important distinction. The manuscript does not question the metaphysical grounding of theological truth in the relationship between God and creation. Rather, the critique focuses on how, in specific socio-political contexts, the invocation of “absolute truths” detached from dialogical frameworks has been historically employed by political agents to reinforce exclusionary ideologies. This dynamic often stems from a self-referential mode of theological discourse that positions belief as the sole epistemic criterion, marginalising both non-believers and those whose expressions of faith fall outside dominant doctrinal norms. We believe, although, that this interdisciplinary engagement and public accountability shaping a public theology strengthens, rather than weakens the theological tradition in a plural and contested world.

The following clarification has been added on page 32, lines 1348-1352:

“Thinking about an epistemological model for theology based on criteria of public rationality implies thinking about public theology from a set of heterogeneous relationships that do not detract from its dogmatic character but open it up to new perspectives of experience and living the faith based on the historical mechanisms in which this experience is born, develops, and transforms.”

Comments 4:

 Perhaps what you are concerned with in your definition of “public theology” is also a question of theological methodology, however only in this one branch of theology. Thus, you could argue that certain forms of “theology must undergo an epistemological reconfiguration to become a form of public knowledge” (31) but this can’t reduce all of theology to public knowledge.

Response 4:

We thank the Reviewer for this pertinent observation. We fully agree that not all theology is reducible to public theology, nor should theological reflection as a whole be confined to frameworks of public rationality. Our intention is not to subsume all theological discourse under the category of public knowledge, but rather to propose that when theology seeks to operate in public, interdisciplinary, or academic contexts, it requires an epistemological reconfiguration that aligns with the norms and criteria of those spaces.

The manuscript therefore focuses on a methodological perspective specific to public theology—understood as a complementary mode of theological reasoning that coexists with other branches, such as dogmatic or mystical theology. As noted on page 32, lines 1348-1352, we affirm that theology is shaped by its dialogical contexts and must adapt accordingly when engaging public discourse, and aims to be recognised as academic knowledge by the university and scientific systems.

Comments 5:

Also an understanding of Revelation qua Revelation (as defined by Dei Verbum, 8, in the Catholic tradition) already allow for a historically mediated discourse. The possibilities of development in history are necessary and Tradition is a living tradition. See Newman on the Development of Doctrine and Congar on Tradition and traditions; Even acknowledging theology’s historical situatedness cannot be simply about reducing public theology to how it contributes to the common good.

Response 5:

Thank you for this thoughtful and stimulating comment. We fully agree that Revelation, as understood in the Catholic tradition, particularly in Dei Verbum n. 8, entails a historically mediated process, and that Tradition is a living transmission rather than a static repetition. Our intention in the manuscript is not to reduce the theological discourse to sociological or political functionality, but to explore how public theology can engage contemporary contexts by adopting a language accessible to citizens, including believers and non-believers alike.

We also recognise that the historical dimension of Revelation has been deeply elaborated by theological voices such as John Henry Newman and Yves Congar, whose highly important authors we will not mention here due to space limitations. However, taking into account the important observation made by Reviewer 3, we added a brief comment about the debate between Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger in Offenbarung und Überlieferung (1965). It aims to offer an important example of how the dynamic interplay between Revelation and Tradition is acknowledged even among authors with different theological perspectives. For the purposes of this article, we limit ourselves to briefly noting that the dynamism of this relationship is a point of broad consensus and aligns with the trajectory our proposal for public theology intends to follow. Due to space constraints, we plan to develop the theme of Tradition and Revelation in greater detail in future work. We are grateful to the Reviewer for raising this essential issue.

The following clarification has been added on page 10, lines 410-420:

“In their joint work Offenbarung und Überlieferung (1965), Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger engage in a profound theological dialogue on the relationship between Revelation and Tradition, which is necessarily mediated not only by ecclesial forms, but also through historical ones. Despite their differences, both authors converged in their understanding that Revelation is not merely a repository of fixed truths, but a dynamic event that unfolds through the life of the believing community. This conception of a historically mediated and dialogical process anticipates the key issues later explored in Dei Verbum, offering a valuable foundation for modern reflections on public theology, particularly concerning the relationship between faith, reason, and historical consciousness. It is precisely this dynamism that positions 21st-century theology within contemporary universities, where it faces the epistemological challenge of achieving recognition not just through concordats, but throughout the scientific community.”